Agenda item

In accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council has received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing premises license in respect of The Ship Inn, Court Lodge Road, Gillingham, Medway, ME7 2QX.

All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.

A representation regarding the review application has also been received from a member of the public against the review application.

Appendix B is under exempt appendices.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing premises license in respect of The Ship Inn, Court Lodge Road, Gillingham, Medway, ME7 2QX.

All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and a representation regarding the review application had also been received from a member of the public against the review application.

Kent Police, as the applicant who requested the review, were invited to speak in support of their application.

 

PC Hunt informed the Panel that Nathaniel Regen-Welch is the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) for the Ship Inn, the premises license holder is Punch Partnership Limited and described the location of the premises.

 

PC Hunt explained that the Ship Inn first came to the attention of Kent Police in 2020 due to concerns about incidents of violence and disorder and lock-ins. In response to this the DPS employed door supervisors and informed Kent Police that people present until as early as 4am were friends and not paying customers and likened this to having friends’ round for drinks. Kent Police issued a warning letter dated 23 September 2020. Kent Police received some calls to the premises in 2021 and 2022 but nothing of concern.

 

PC Hunt informed the Panel of visits to the premises and the outcome:

 

-       February 2023 – PC Hunt attended and spoke to the DPS and were informed that the WhatsApp group with local residents was working well.

 

-       14 July 2023 – PC Hunt and PC Smuts attended in response to a complaint about noise, anti-social behaviour, and lock-ins from a local resident and the DPS assured them that lock-ins were a thing of the past and that CCTV would always be made available to refute any allegations of lock-ins.

 

-       26 August 2023 – PC Hunt attended at approximately 7pm in response to excessive music noise to find a band performing in the beer garden. PC Hunt recorded the noise levels from various locations in the vicinity on his mobile phone.

 

-       4 October 2023 – PC Hunt and PC Smuts attended due to further complaints of disturbances and lock-ins in September 2023. Charlotte Robinson, the partner of the DPS denied the lock-ins but admissions were then made when CCTV was reviewed. Kent Police requested CCTV from the early hours of 24 and 28 September 2023 and reported that despite numerous requests for this afterwards it had not been provided. A warning letter was handed to the DPS and sent to the premises license holder and there had been no response.

 

-       17 November 2023 – PC Hunt reported that this was when the trigger incident occurred when Kent Police attended the premises as part of an operation which involved attending several licenced premises with a team of officers and a passive drugs dog. This visit resulted in multiple arrests. PC Hunt reported that the CCTV system was seized on 17 November 2023, in part due to a lack of trust as they had not previously provided CCTV and a review of CCTV had taken place taken place for key dates and weekends. The Panel were informed that the CCTV showed that the majority of customers arrested on 17 November 2023 appeared to be regulars and friends of the DPS or his staff.  One customer was underage, and they appeared to be involved in after-hours activity. The CCTV also showed smoking inside the premises and customers leaning across the bar and helping themselves to the beer taps.

 

Kent Police had undertaken drug tests at the premises and PC Hunt reported the results to the Panel as the presence of cocaine had been found on the bar top, pool table and in the male and female toilets.

 

PC Hunt explained that Kent Police were not seeking revocation of the premises licence but had requested the following measures to alleviate the concerns of Kent Police:

-       A limit on the number of music events

-       A reduction in hours

-       The use of door supervisors to assist with the drug issues and management of events

-       The removal of the DPS

 

Negotiations had taken place between Kent Police and the premises license holder’s representatives, and some conditions requested by Kent Police had been agreed to however PC Hunt explained that the licensed premises holder did not agree with a reduction in hours, limiting music events and the removal of the DPS. The premises license holder wished to keep the DPS in situ, but PC Hunt informed the Panel that Kent Police could not support this.

 

The Panel moved into a closed session and Kent Police provided further information regarding the incident on 17 November and showed the Panel CCTV and mobile phone footage relating to exempt Appendix B.

 

The hearing then reopened to the public.

 

In response to the review application Mr Domleo, Solicitor for the premises license holder, explained that Punch Partnerships Ltd acquired the Ship Inn in March 2018 and the tenancy had been let to Nathaniel Regan-Welch (DPS) and Charlotte Robinson since 2016 with a 5-year rolling lease in place with 3 years remaining. The Panel were informed that the DPS and his Partner Charlotte had operated the premises for nearly 8 years, lived above the premises and had invested over £50,000 on refurbishing the premises.

 

Mr Domleo assured the Panel that the customers involved in the incident on 17 November had all been barred indefinitely and that the DPS and his Partner wanted to be part of the solution to the issues that had arisen. Mr Domleo explained that the DPS had been working other jobs but admitted this was a mistake and that running the Ship Inn would now be his sole focus. The DPS is undertaking further training and there had not been any further incidents since door supervisors had been employed.

 

The Panel were informed that the premises license holder wished for the DPS to be given a second chance and remain as the DPS. Mr Domleo said that an appropriate response would be to apply the suggested conditions and allow Mr Regen-Welch to remain as the DPS so that he could be part of the solution to the issues that had arisen.

 

The Panel then asked questions of the attendees representing the premises and asked how any future issues with drugs would be dealt with and how they would ensure the protection of children from harm. The Panel also enquired about the conditions of the licence, how they would ensure they are met and about the training that had been undertaken,

 

In summing up, Mr Domleo said the good relationship that the DPS and his Partner had with Kent Police and that they were personable and approachable should be recognised. The failings and mistakes made in a challenging location were acknowledged and Mr Domleo explained that with the individuals involved in the incident barred and the training put in place the premises license holder respectfully requested that Mr Regen-Welch should be given a second chance and be allowed to remain as the DPS.

 

Kent Police summed up by explaining that the trigger incident was the worst reaction that they had ever seen, that the anonymous representation and suspected drug activity should also be taken into consideration and that regardless of the DPS the underage sales and lock-ins were unacceptable and must stop. Kent Police had agreed various conditions with the premises license holder by way of a compromise, but it was for the Panel to determine whether the DPS should remain.

 

Apart from the Legal Adviser and Democratic Services Officers, the Chairperson asked all parties to leave the room during the Panel’s deliberations and informed them that they would be notified of the decision in writing within 5 working days.

 

Decision:

 

The Panel were required to determine the application for review of the Premises License in respect of The Ship Inn in Gillingham. This was an application from Kent Police, as a Responsible Authority, and the Panel has been outlined within the papers received, including the supplementary information received, as well as the verbal representations made and CCTV and Body Worn Camera footage shown. In addition, the Panel have considered the anonymous representations made within the paperwork provided.

 

The Panel have also fully considered and taken into account all of the representations made both in writing and verbally, by the Respondent and their representatives. This includes due consideration of the agreed proposed conditions and also those which are not agreed, but which have otherwise been proposed to allay the concerns raised by the Responsible Authority.

 

The Panel have carefully and objectively considered the individual merits of the application before it and have taken into consideration those representations made by the Respondent. Finally, the Panel have viewed that evidence through the lens of the applicable law and its duty to take such steps as are appropriate in the circumstances to promote the Licensing Objectives.

 

The Panel found that there were serious and repeated incidents which failed to promote the Licensing Objectives. This included serious crime and disorder taking place at the premises and in the immediate vicinity of the premises. This included incidents of anti-social behaviour and public nuisance; but for the avoidance of doubt the Panel did note that the purported noise issue was not substantiated by the Local Authority’s Environmental Health team and therefore did not feel this was a proper consideration for them to take into account. There was demonstrable supply of alcohol outside of licensed hours on several occasions, despite warnings given to the Designated Premises Supervisor and subsequent guarantees by the Designated Premises Supervisor. There was sale on numerous occasions to underage persons. The Panel found that there had been a failure to be honest with Kent Police and were concerned about the failure to provide CCTV, whilst acknowledging that it was not a specific condition on the Licence. This was not disputed by the Respondent. The Panel found that the Designated Premises Supervisor had undertaken some recent training, and that the Brewery was now involved and offering assistance to him. The Panel were concerned that the Designated Premises Supervisor was demonstrably experienced in such a role but continually and deliberately acted contrary to the Licensing Objectives. The Panel found that they did not have confidence that the continuation of the current Designated Premises Supervisor would promote the Licensing Objectives.

 

As such, the Panel are satisfied that steps are necessary to promote the Licensing Objectives and that the following steps are appropriate and a proportionate approach to the concerns raised and evidenced by the Responsible Authority. In particular, the Panel felt that the core issue at the premises was the current Designated Premises Supervisor. The Panel therefore determined as follows:

 

1.    To remove the current designated premises supervisor; and

2.    To modify the conditions of the premises licence.

The Panel did not feel all of the proposed conditions were necessary or proportionate and therefore determined to add the below conditions to the premises licence:

 

CCTV

CCTV will be provided in the form of a recordable system, capable of providing pictures of evidential quality in all lighting conditions particularly facial recognition.

1. Cameras shall record all ingress and egress to the premises, fire exits and all areas where the sale and supply of alcohol occurs.

2. Equipment must be maintained in good working order, with recordings correctly time and date stamped. Recordings MUST be kept in date order, kept for a period of 31 days and handed to police and authorised officers on demand.

3. The premises licence holder must ensure at all times a DPS or appointed member of staff are on the premises and are capable and competent at downloading CCTV footage in a recordable format to the police and local authority on demand.

4. The recording equipment and discs/tapes shall be kept in a secure environment under the control of the DPS or other responsible named individual.

5. An operational daily log report must be maintained and endorsed by signature, indicating the system has been checked and is compliant. In the event of any failures, any action taken is to be recorded.

6. In the event of technical failure of the CCTV equipment the premises licence holder or DPS must report the failure to the police licensing officer immediately. (licensing.north.division@kent.police.uk).

 

Staff training

All persons who sell or supply alcohol to customers must have licensing training.

1. Training must take place within six weeks of employment.

2. Any new employees will be supervised until the training has taken place.

3. Refresher training should be repeated a minimum of every six months or earlier if required due to changes of legislation.

4. Training records must be kept on the premises and shall contain the nature, content and frequency of all training.

5. Records must be made available for inspection by police, police licensing officer and authorised officers from Medway Council on demand either electronically or in hard copy.

 

Drugs Policy

The premises shall have a written drugs policy, this will detail the strategies to minimise the use and supply of illegal drugs within the premises.  The drugs policy shall include a structured training policy for all staff covering the issues of misuse of drugs in relation to licensed premises.  Records must be kept showing members of staff who have taken the training. 

 

Incident log

An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to a police officer, police licensing officer or Council authorised licensing officer. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following:

1. All crimes reported to the venue.

2. All ejections of patrons.

3. Any complaints received concerning crime and disorder.

4. Any incidents of disorder.

5. All seizures of drugs or offensive weapons.

6. Any refusal of the sale of alcohol.

 

 

SIA – Door supervision

When the premises is open between 19:00 and closing on Friday and Saturday a minimum of 2 SIA door supervisor must be present and employed at the premises.

A minimum 2 SIA door supervisors will be employed at the premises for the duration of any live or recorded music events. At all other times the designated premises supervisor will undertake a risk assessment in respect of the provision of door supervisors and when deemed appropriate a minimum of 2 door supervisors will be employed. 

 

Personal licence holder

There must be at least one personal licence holder on site at the premises while the sale of alcohol was conducted.

 

Challenge 25

The premises shall adopt a challenge 25 policy.